Good evening, everybody.

Welcome to the June twenty-third, twenty twenty-six meeting of the zoning board of appeals.

Um, I believe we have one case on our agenda for tonight, but before we do uh get started, we have um uh couple of uh housekeeping matters to take care of, and uh then we'll get straight away to the cases.

Um for those following along on your agenda, uh it's item number one, uh call to order and any announcements, and we have no announcements for tonight.

Item number two is general public comment uh related to zoning in the city of Frederick.

Uh, it has happened twice, I think, in the last twenty-three years, but I do not see anybody waving their hand uh to give us their opinions on uh zoning laws in general.

Uh and that brings us to item number three, which is review and approval of the May twenty-sixth, twenty twenty-six meeting minutes.

Members of the board, you have those minutes before you, and I will entertain a motion.

Mr.

Speaker, Bob Susan, I make a motion that we accept the minutes as written.

We have a motion from Mr.

Sisson to accept the minutes as written.

Do we have a second?

Second for Mr.

Hicks.

Do we have any discussion of the motion?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstained?

Seeing none, the meeting minutes are approved as written.

Um brings us to item number four, swearing of uh swearing in of witnesses.

If you are planning on speaking before the board of resonating appeals tonight, if you could please raise your right hand for me.

You solemnly swear or affirm the responses given and statements made in this hearing before the zoning board of appeals will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

If so, answer I do.

Thank you all very much.

Brings us to item number five, continuances.

We have no continuances.

Item number six is old business.

We have no old business before the board.

And that brings us to item number seven, new business.

Uh, we have one case on the agenda for this evening, case CBA two six-one V as in Victor, a variance at three one zero aviation way.

Um I believe Mitch McKeith, you have the staff report for us.

Yes.

The Frederick Municipal Airport was conditionally approved for a final site plan under case PC 26-34 FSI on June 8th of this year to construct construct eight hangar buildings totaling 233,231 square feet and approximately a 1200 square foot club house.

Before construction of the hangars can begin, the airport must comply with the Maryland Aviation Administration, Comar 11.03.05, which limits the height of proposed airplaning hangar to 23 feet.

The proposed height is 16 of feet above the allowable height, creating a 39-foot obstruction into the transitional surface.

This request is unique in that the applicant is not asking for variance to regulations in Articles 4 and 8 of the land management code related to density, bulk or area.

Instead, the request is to the provisions of Comar in accordance with Section 0.06 of that statute with auth which authorizes a local political subdivision to grant variances in accordance with local procedures for such, provided that the variance does not endanger public health, safety, and welfare.

The land management code allows the board the zoning board of appeals to grant variances to certain provisions or requirements of the code when all of the conditions set forth in Section 313 C are met.

Condition one is that the variance is not in is not contrary to the public interest.

The applicant states that the variance requested is limited only to the Maryland Aviation Administration related to obstructions to air navigation.

The FAA has determined that there is no hazard to air navigation for building up to 39 feet in height.

The site exceeds the state statute by 16 feet and would require variance.

The airport management has determined that the 16 feet impact will have no impact on aircraft operations or safety to the public.

Staff concurs that the request is not contrary to the interest on the basis that the FAA has determined that there is no hazard to air navigation at the proposed height of 39 feet.

Development within the IST district is not subject to bulk and dimensional standards of Section 405 of the land management code, but is instead subject to performance standards for flexible zoning districts.

Condition two, due to exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topographical conditions, or other unique conditions, or the use of the property or property immediately adjacent.

The strict application of these regulations would result in unusual practical difficulties or exception to or undue hardship upon the owner of such property.

The applicant states that the purpose of allowing the hangar is to allow taller tail aircraft to be stored in the at the airport, as the door height is limited by the ridge height of the structure.

Staff agrees that this is a unique condition that caused caused undue that the unique condition that would cause undue hardship is the very use of the airport.

The transitional surface extends outward and upward at right angles from the runway center line and the runway center line extended at a slope of seven to one from the sides of the primary surface and from the sides of the approach surface.

It is essentially a three-dimensional imaginary surface extending up to and away from the runway.

The height restrictions imposed under the provisions of Comar would not have the effect of eliminating the building height to only 23 feet in such proximity to the runway, which is unique to the property.

Height restrictions coupled with the unique development of the property causes a practical difficulty that warrants the variance.

Criteria three, the variance requested is the minimum necessary to reasonably overcome the extraordinary or exceptional surfaces applicable to the property.

The applicant states that due to clear span requirements of the hangar and the slope requirements of the roof, a 39-foot ridge height would allow for a feasible design of the building while having no aviational operation.

Staff agrees that the requested height is the minimum reasonable necessary to allow the storage of aircraft.

Criteria 4.

The literal interpretation of the provision of this code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this code and would prevent the reasonable use of the property by the applicant.

Airport management has determined that the hangar development is crucial to satisfying demand for aviation at the airport.

And the conclusion is also supported by FAA under their master plan.

The having a private developer construct these hangars and pay subsequent ground rent to the airport is a key component to the airport's financial self-sufficiency into the future.

Staff agrees as the height complies with the land management code, and that placing a higher standard on the site which has not been imposed on similar zone sites would prevent reasonable use of the property.

Granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this code to other lands or structures in the same district.

The applicant states that this variance is from the state's rule on obstruction to air navigation and only applied to airports licensed by the state.

Staff concurs that there is no special privilege by granting the variance.

The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this code and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to public welfare.

The applicant states that the variance only applies to state aviation rules and would allow the building height to exceed the standards by 16 feet.

Size of the aircraft utilizing the airport is limited by FAA designs and will not create larger aircraft using the airport.

Staff concurs that the height complies with the land management code and the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent.

The variance, no variance shall be granted in any case where the applicant or their agent has created or caused to be a situation which would or has necessitated the issuance of a variance in order for such property to comply with this code.

The applicant indicates that this request has been thoroughly evaluated by management and their on-call engineers and has been determined to be in the best interest of the airport to satisfy their existing demand.

It is supported by the FAA obstruction evaluation and finding of no hazard to air navigation and is also approved with their master plan for infrastructure development.

Staff would like to know that the situation near necessitating the variance has not been caused by the applicant, but is a result of the proximity of the construction to the one runway, which is necessary for its intended use.

In making their decision, the board shall consider those items laid out in Section 312E of the land management code and shall not approve any application where the board finds the proposed building or use would adversely affect the public health safety, security morals, or general welfare, or result in dangerous traffic conditions or jeopardize the lives or property of people living in the neighborhood.

Staff finds that the property is zoned institutional and is within the airport overlay.

The property is improved as the Frederick Municipal Airport, and the airport seeks to construct a new hangar in accordance with airport master plan as depicted on the final site plan approved by the Planning Commission on March 10th, 2025.

Construction on the airport is subject to state regulations of Comar 11.03.05 pertaining to the transitional surfaces surrounding a runway, which have the effect of limiting the height of the proposed hangar to 23 feet.

The minimum height necessary for the hangar to support the expected fleet of planes is 39 feet.

The zoning board of appeals is authorized to grant variances to provisions, including the transitional surface provisions in accordance with the land management code.

Staff recommends that the zoning board of appeals approves the variance requests for 16 feet above the 23-foot height limitation imposed by the transitional surface restrictions of the Maryland Aviation Administration, finding that the variance is not contrary to the interest as the FAA has issued a finding that there is no hazard to air navigation.

The use of the property as an airport under the strict application of the transitional surface provisions provision regulations cause its undue hardship by limiting the height of the hangar below what is necessary to reasonably serve its intended purpose.

The variance requested is the minimum reasonably necessary to overcome the height limitations, and that denial of the variance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties within the same district.

The granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this code to other lands or structures in the same district.

And granting the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent as the FAA has issued a finding that there is no hazard to air navigation.

The applicant did not create or cause to be created a situation which would or has a necessitated the issuance of a variance in this variance does not endanger public health safety or welfare.

Thank you very much.

Members of the board, do we have any questions for staff at this time?

No, seeing none.

Do we have our applicant with us tonight?

And if we could have your name and address read for the record, that'd be great.

Sure.

Andrew Moore, Airport Manager, uh address because uh 310 Aviation Way, Frederick, Maryland.

Um good evening, board.

Um we're here again.

Uh I have a very good graphic there, just as a very quick recap of why we're doing this, right?

So this is uh another hangar project that's going to be privately developed.

Um the FAA did an airspace analysis of it, and it came back.

And the difference between the FAA and the state rules is that the FAA says, yes, it's it is through the transitional surface, but we're gonna further study this to see how it would impact um the approaches and safety to aircraft.

And they said it's not actually restricting any operations.

Put a red light on the corner, and you're good.

It's a red obstruction light.

The state's rules the way they're written, it's black or white.

You're either over or under, right?

So that's kind of where this situation comes from and why we'd be asking for um uh variance to the state Comar rules for obstruction.

Um in this graphic here, it's probably the best way to visualize it.

Um the red line that comes across there, that's kind of the edge of the transitional surface that's coming out from the runway and going up of where uh on the up image upside of the map of the image, that is not in the transitional service, but below that red line, those one and a half and maybe a sliver of the second row, those are penetrating the transitional surface.

So it's a good way to visualize kind of what the impacts are as far as what's in or out of the transitional surface.

Um with that, I can just you guys can answer any questions.

I don't want to give you too much information that you already know about it.

Um so go ahead and ask any questions if you do have them.

Thank you, Mr.

Moore.

And yes, this is uh the second time recently we've discussed this.

So um uh we did get a lot of the background uh uh during the previous uh meeting.

Um I always ask, even though we have it in the the record, and it's glad I'm glad to hear you say that.

Um we do have approval and clearance from the FAA about what we need to do with regard to hazard.

So um uh that's usually uh a bellwether uh for me when we have things that involve uh the airport out there.

Um but good to good to hear your testimony that uh the FAA is taking a look at that hazard space and giving you some feedback.

Umbers of the board, do you have any questions for Mr.

Moore?

No.

Mr.

Moore, please, as just like uh here a few months ago, please hold on for me.

Um uh just so uh we follow procedure.

Uh is there any member of the public that would like to give us uh input or testimony on uh this case.

Seeing none, Mr.

Moore, is there anything that you would like to offer uh to the board in closing any additional information you'd like to give us before we consider the case?

Well, we just had a groundbreak for groundbreaking ceremony for this project.

So this is the perfect timing for this, and we're excited to bring this and these new tenants into Frederick.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Moore.

Thank you.

Uh members of the board, you have before you case ZBA-26-1 for Viazin Victor at 310 Aviation Way.

I will entertain a motion.

I would like a motion to approve ZBA 26-04.

Victor, the request for a variance.

16 feet above the 25 feet heat height restriction imposed by the transitional surface restrictions of the Maryland Aviation Administration.

1103-0.

Section Uh section uh section 04 paragraph D.5 alpha for 310 aviation way under the powers granted by the board.

Section 203 of the land management code and COM Air 11.03.05.

Finding that uh one, the variance is not contrary to the public interest as the FAA's issue of finding that there is no hazardous air traffic.

Two, the use of the property as an airport under the strict application of the transitional surface provision regulations of common areas.

Causes an undue hardship by limiting the height of the hangar below what is necessary to reasonably serve intended purpose.

The variance requested is the minimum reasonable necessary to overcome the height limitation imposed by the transitional service.

Three, the height complies of the LMC denial, the variance would deprive the applicant of rights community enjoyed by other properties within the same zoning district.

As the height complies with the LMC.

Five the granting of the variants will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this code and will not injure not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare as it supports the main airport in the city.

Six, the application did not create an or cause to be created situation.

Would or has necessary the issuance of a variance in accordance with section 312 of the LMC and COMR 11.0.3.05 section zero six.

The variance does not endanger public health safety and welfare.

We have a motion for approval with those findings of facts.

Do we have a second?

Bob Sisson's seconds.

Second from Mr.

Sisson.

Do we have any further discussion of the motion?

No.

Seeing none, I will call for a vote.

Mr.

Sisson, how do you vote?

In favor?

Mr.

Hicks, how do you vote?

In favor?

Mr.

Cox, how do you vote?

In favor.

Three votes in uh favor.

Uh and so the motion passes and the variance is granted.

Uh good luck, uh, Mr.

Moore, with the uh your your project.

Uh you know, it's a unique resource that we have here in the in the city of Frederick.

And so um it's nice to see that we've got uh interest from uh folks that want to expand uh and take advantage of it here.

So really uh hope that uh uh you have a a good project and uh of course you know as well as uh I do, but of course if you have any questions specifically, um uh the folks here in the planning department can help you out.

Thank you very much.

All right, members of the board, that brings us to item number seven, which is board business.

Um typically uh here in the summer we do our elections of officers for the board, but we have Mr.

Hand who is uh absent tonight.

We usually um uh by tradition, wait until we have a full board to have that discussion.

Um would folks uh prefer to do that and wait till uh Mr.

Hand comes back and we do elections of all the officers, or would you like to do that?

You could continue the item.

Yeah.

Do we have something for the next month?

I believe Ms.

It is likely all right, continue to next month.

All in agreement.

All right, all in agreement.

We will continue the election of officers to the July 2026 meeting of the zoning board of appeals.

Um uh and uh that brings us to the end of the agenda.

Does anybody have anything uh for the good of the cause before we adjourn?

Staff, we are good.

All right, seeing uh that uh we're good.

I hope everyone is having a good holiday uh here season between Juneteenth and July 4th coming up, and uh look forward to seeing you all in July.